----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Shewmaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Vincent Diepeveen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Beowulf] Has anyone actually seen/used a cell system?
On 10/2/06, Vincent Diepeveen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not wanting to sound too negative, but total nonsense concept.
First of all this 'sequoia' claims to be a new programming language.
Meaning it'll take a year or 30 until some good compilers for it are
there,
provided someone is going to support it.
Which isn't going to happen.
Like many new programming systems, it compiles to C.
The parallellization basically is based upon complex assumptions for
programmers. So for programmers they don't actually make it easier than
trivial parallellization is via C/C++ function calls.
The sequoia parallellization basically is simplistically over for loops
that
a programmer himself can trivially parallellize too.
Sequoia allows the same source to compile and run on systems with
very different memory hierarchies. It uses MPI on clusters and DMA
on the Cell. It also manages overlays on the Cell. Do you consider a
portable runtime system that manages overlays and streams data
asynchronously trivial to implement?
Which is my bottom line point. You'll need 1000 compiler programmers to get
your language
supported well.
Even then, do you use pointers?
If not: end of efficiency of your language.
For complex algorithms, yes even some simple, C# and JAVA are factor 3
slower than C
solutions, provided the C programmer is real good.
Now of course Sun and Microsoft created big paper work to prove (based upon
some console routines that print to the graphics card, so not processor
based!) that their programming language is ok.
But for applications that i write, which aren't dependant upon the console
speed,
it is simply factor 3.
In some functions of course an even bigger factor, as the compilers do not
optimize at hardware level.
Further the optimization of sequoia simply doesn't happen. They assume
"kernel libraries" solve the problem. Interestingly it mentions
explicitly:
"if kernel libraries could be obtained, such as FFTW and the intel MKL
for
PCs, or the IBM SPE matrix library for Cell, we call these libraries from
Sequoia leaf tasks".
In short if some algorithm has not been implemented for sequoia, sequoia
is
unusable. Others may do the work as usual to promote sequoia.
As I understand it, the leaf tasks can be written in C, Fortran, or
whatever.
Saying Sequoia is unusable is like saying that MPI is unusable.
Let me quote the paper:
"we present sequoia, a programming language designed to .... "
So now you withdraw the claim that it is a programming language on its own?
Either claim it is an ANL, another new (programming) language,
or claim it is a library.
Don't claim both.
If it is a library which i can call *from* C code, such as CILK, then it
isn't a programming language,
but i can use the efficiency of C code.
If it is an ANL, then face reality that it will never get anything.
MPI is not a programming language, it's a library you can use in many
languages to transport messages between nodes.
Of course an ANL is going to fail anyway if you want to be utmost
compatible, claiming something you created is so compatible that it works
both for a CELL as well as for a cluster.
This is just too silly for words.
The biggest problem of most students when creating a program, is that they
want to be overcompatible. Supporting everything.
Claiming sequoia is like that too, means you don't need 1000 compiler
programmers, but 5000.
Because for each hardware a specific bottleneck is there, requiring a new
implementation.
What works well at a CELL might not ever work fine on a gigabit ethernet
cluster.
Vincent
--
Andrew Shewmaker
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, [email protected]
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
